ISSN (Print) : 0974-6846

Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol 10(23), DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i23/115566, June 2017 ISSN (Online) : 0974-5645

Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Draft Tubes

for Francis Turbine
Tarang Agarwal1, Shreyash Chaudhary1 and Shivank Verma1
Invertis University, Bareilly − 243123, Uttar Pradesh, India;
1

tarang.agarwal1@gmail.com, shreyashchaudhary000@gmail.com, shivank.v@live.com

Abstract
Objectives: Draft tube is an important component of a hydro turbine (reaction) because it permits a negative head thereby
increasing the total head on the turbine. It is located below the runner and allows deceleration of flow at exit. Since, the
efficiency of the turbine can be increased by increasing the overall-efficiency of the draft tube, it’s important to identify
and optimize the design parameters which affect the efficiency of draft tube. Methods/ Statistical Analysis: In the present
study, numerical and experimental analysis was done on different draft tubes in Francis turbine. In experimental study,
different types of draft tubes were designed, fabricated and tested on a Francis turbine test rig. For conical draft tube,
cone angle and cross section (outlet) was varied to understand the flow dynamics. Further, elbow draft tube (rectangular
section) was also designed and tested to determine Best Efficiency Point (BEP). Numerical analysis was done using ANSYS
CFX for various draft tubes which were designed in ANSYS Design Modeler. Findings/Results: The results of numerical
analysis were validated experimentally. High pressure zones were identified in conical and elbow draft tube, although,
overall pressure was less than atmospheric pressure. The efficiency of Francis turbine using 8 degree cone angle gives
higher efficiency. For angles greater than 8 degree, backflow was observed. For variable discharge conditions (part-load),
elbow draft tube can be used because of lesser variations in efficiency at different flow rates. Applications/Improvements:
Further, conical draft tube with square section was also analyzed. Higher values of efficiency were obtained at higher speed
of the turbine. Hence, it is advisable to further study this type of draft tube.

Keywords: CFD, Draft Tubes, Efficiency, Francis Turbine, Suction Pressure

1.  Introduction In order to increase this share, construction of new hydro-

At present, a major section of electricity production is cov-
ered by the utilization of conventional energy resources.
The demand of electricity is increasing rapidly which has
paved the way of non-conventional and renewable energy
sources to act as alternate energy resources. These alter-
native energy resources include – Hydro energy, Nuclear
energy, Wind energy, solar energy, Bio fuel etc. Among all
these sources of energy, hydropower is becoming more
prominent because it is a clean and abundant energy
resource. Moreover it also generates about 16.3% of the
total electricity in world (3801.48 TWh in 2013)1.
power plant and modification of the existing hydropower
plants is required. Since the main part of a hydropower plant
is the turbine, efforts are made to increase the efficiency of
turbine. Even the small improvements in the efficiency of
turbines are important in terms of power generated and eco-
nomical aspects. In a turbine, the fluid flow is directed to the
runner in a manner such that the energy losses prior to it are
minimum. After the runner, the flow emerges with a mean
velocity and kinetic energy which is a loss in terms of energy.
If the runner is situated above the tail race, a part of potential
energy equal to the height difference between runner and
tail race is lost. This is true for all impulse turbines.

*Author for correspondence

 Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Draft Tubes for Francis Turbine
In2 suggested attaching a cylindrical tube after the
runner of reaction turbines. One end of this tube was
connected to the turbine and the other was situated below
the tail race level. Originally these tubes were known as
suction tubes. Later in 1960, they were renamed as draft
tubes. From fluid flow perspective, draft tube is the most
challenging component to design because of the interac-
tion of complex flows. Draft tube serves the following two
purposes:
1. Installation of the turbine runner above the tail water
level (avoiding cavitation).
2. Conversion of kinetic energy at runner exit into pres-
sure energy (reaction principle)
The third function is less obvious and up to now not
clearly addressed is that the draft tube determines the tail
water level number and tail water Froude and hence, the
non-dissipative losses3.
The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of effi-
ciency of a turbine by use of different types of draft tubes.
More specifically, this study seeks to make a comparative
attempt at assessing efficiencies of different types of draft
tubes in order to determine the effect on the efficiency of
Francis turbine and optimization of existing draft tubes.
2.  Working Principle
The underlying principle can be understood by using
Bernoulli’s equation between section 1-1 and 2-2 as
shown in Figure 1.
p1/ρg= patm/ρg -(Hs+ (V12/2g)-(V2 2/2g) - hf ) (1)
Figure 1.  Conical daft tube.
Where p1is the pressure at exit of runner (inlet of draft
tube), patm is atmospheric pressure, V1is the velocity at
runner exit (draft tube inlet), V2is the outlet velocity (tail
2 Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org
race), Hs is the suction head or draft tube height, hf are the
frictional losses, ρ is fluid density and g is gravitational
constant.
From eq. (1), it can be understood that draft tube
generates negative pressure (vacuum) which is utilized
inside the turbine (reactionary principle). Draft tube
plays an important role converting the excess kinetic
energy (velocity of fluid) into pressure energy which is
utilized inside the turbine. Hence, draft tube efficacy plays
an important role in enhancing the overall efficiency of
turbine.
3.  Types of Draft Tubes
According to the geometrical design draft tubes can
broadly be classified into three types:
1. Conical type,
2. Curved or Elbow type, and
3. Bell Mouth type.
The conical (straight) draft tube Figure 1 is the sim-
plest form of draft tube and it has excellent hydraulic
characteristics. The conical draft tube consists of three
parts: The initial part starting from the axis of the run-
ner blades, the cone proper and the exhaust chamber. This
type of draft tube is runner size of up to 2.5m (small and
medium size runner).
Curved draft tube is the basic type of draft tube used
in vertical hydraulic turbines. Curved draft tubes also
have three different sections, namely initial cone, curved
or elbow section and outflow diffuser. The initial part
of tube is similar to that of a straight conical draft tube
Figure 2. Curved draft tube is generally used in runner
size of upto 10m (medium and large size runner). Further
classification can be done on the basis of design of elbow
or curved section.
Figure 2.  Curved draft tube.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology

The bell mouth spreading draft tube is a straight axis
tube but differs from the conical draft tube in aspects of
shape of its walls (on the basis of some non-linear law).
The shape resembles a trumpet with sharp flare Figure 3
at the exit. This type of draft tube is generally used for
runner size of up to 5 m (medium size).
Figure 3.  Bell mouth draft tube.
4.  Literature Review
There have been various studies on the existing draft tube
designs. In4 used CFD code for a 3D viscous and turbulent
flow inside Francis turbine running at different speeds. It
was concluded that whirl and meridional velocity compo-
nents (outlet) depends on the operating regime of turbine
and these velocities also affects the overall losses inside
the draft tube. Moreover, variation in losses and efficiency
of draft tube was found to be parabolic with respect to
the speed factor. The Best Efficiency Point (BEP) was also
found to be shifted towards higher speed factor. In a later
study5, it was concluded that length and diffuser angle has
a significant effect on the performance of straight conical
draft tube In6 conducted a numerical analysis of a Francis
turbine. It was concluded that the guide vane thickness
was an important parameter and optimal thickness can
lead to maximum efficiency value.
In7 analyzed elbow draft tube numerically and deter-
mined the parameters affecting the performance of draft
tube. Height (above tail race) and length were identi-
fied as important parameters which influences the draft
tube performance while variation in mass flow rate had
very less effect on draft tube efficiency In8 used various
designs of existing bend draft tube and analyzed them
numerically. CFD was identified as an important tool in
Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org
Tarang Agarwal, Shreyash Chaudhary and Shivank Verma
identifying the important parameters, their dependence
and understanding of working mechanism. Hence, CFD
can be used to improve the design of existing draft tubes
In9 conducted an experimental study for establishing a
relationship between flow separation inside the draft tube
and efficiency for a bulb turbine. It was concluded that the
flow separation is 3D in nature and flow separation zone
extends till far upstream along the corner of the draft tube
In10 analyzed draft tube using a numerical simulation. The
results of pressure and velocity at inlet and exit of draft
tube obtained by CFD analysis were then compared with
the results obtained by experimental procedure. Both
results were in good agreement with each other. Thus it
was observed that by using CFD analysis results one can
easily predict almost nearer results to that of experimen-
tal analysis. It was also concluded that CFD analysis can
be used as a tool for reducing the time and cost for a given
investigation.
5.  Problems in Draft Tubes
After an extensive study of literature available, following
three were identified as problems in draft tube:
5.1  Vortex Rope or Swirling Flow
Vortex rope is one the main problem that occurs in draft
tube. This vortex rope rotates and generates a rotating
oscillatory pressure field. These pressure oscillations can
lead to severe vibrations and other losses in the draft
tube. In11 concluded that vortex rope intensity depends
on 3 parameters viz. specific speed of the runner, shape
of the runner and operating regime. In12,13 carried out an
extensive experimental study to identify various parame-
ters involved in deceleration of swirling flow (instability).
Figure 4 shows corkscrew vortex formation in the numer-
ical simulation.
Figure 4.  Corkscrew vortex in a model13.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology 3
 Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Draft Tubes for Francis Turbine

Many methods have been developed to minimize the

shedding of vortex rope without affecting the operational
efficiency In14 suggested that pressure and flow below the
runner discharge area can be controlled by extending the
runner cone which in result will control the swirl in the
draft tube. He also suggested that attachment of various
stabilizer fins inside the draft tube will be beneficial for
mitigating the draft tube swirl and pressure fluctuations.
Structures such as splitter plates etc. were also proposed as
the solution to reduce swirl intensity inside the draft tube.
Figure 5.  Damage in draft tube due to cavitation20.
However, these structures might create adverse effects at
other operating regimes due to geometrical corrections15.
In16 developed a technique of injecting small water flow 6.  Design and Analysis
rate (1-2% turbine discharge) inside the draft tube cone
(forced excitation) which cancels the self-induced pres- Design of draft tube requires deep understanding of
sure fluctuations generated by the vortex rope at partial hydrodynamics. The difficulty lies in the fact that the flow
discharge. In17 concluded that breakdown of the helical in the draft tube is influenced by many parameters such
vortex (at part load) is directly related to the severe decel- as operating condition of the turbine, type of the runner,
eration of flow at the downstream (runner). Moreover, geometry complexity of the tube etc. But on the basis of
injecting of water from the cone tip was also suggested to study of different experimental works we have tried to
minimize the instability inside the draft tube. establish the dimension standards of the different types
of turbines. The design of draft tube is based on design
5.2 Surging parameters from book by In2. Figure 6 and 7 shows the
basic design of conical and elbow draft tube. Other draft
Draft-tube-surge is the term used for the pressure fluc- tubes were modified accordingly. Dimensions of designed
tuation observed in draft tubes. It is observed that when straight conical draft tube are:
surging is strong it results in vibration of draft tube and
penstock which ultimately leads to loss of power and may 1. Throat Diameter (D1) = 80 mm.
also cause rupturing of draft tube liner. At part load con- 2. Cone Angle (2θ) = 16 degrees.
ditions, whirl frequency of the vortex rope equals to the 3. Length of conical part (Lcon) = 600 mm.
frequency of hydraulic turbine (resonance) which leads to 4. Outlet Diameter (D2) = 248 mm.
surging in draft tube18. This phenomenon also affects the
limitations of hydro turbine due to restrictions in certain
operating range19. One possible solution to minimize this
is to supply certain amount of air inside the draft tube.
Moreover, compressed air can also be supplied whenever
necessary.

5.3 Cavitations
Another major problem that occurs in draft tube is cavita-
tions. In reaction turbines when the discharge is reduced Figure 6.  Designed straight conical draft tube.
to a certain amount from its original discharge owing to
rotation, cavity is formed at the inside the draft tube. This
process of cavity formation is called cavitations Figure 5.
The formation of cavity will lead to the vibration in the
draft tube. Rate of discharge is an important parameter
to reduce cavity as the radius of cavity generally increases
with reduction in discharge19. Figure 7.  Designed curved draft tube.

4 Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Tarang Agarwal, Shreyash Chaudhary and Shivank Verma

Dimensions of designed curved draft tube are:

1.   Throat Diameter ( D1) = 80 mm.
2.   Cone Angle (θ) = 8 degree.
3.   Height of Draft Tube ( h ) = 200 mm.
4.   Length of Draft tube ( L ) = 380 mm.
5.   Height of conical section ( h1) = 120 mm.
6.   Diameter of inlet section of elbow ( D2) = 114 mm.
7.   Height of elbow section (h2) = 80 mm.
8.   Length of elbow section ( L1) = 128 mm.
9.   Width of the exit section of elbow ( B1) = 200 mm.
10.   Height of exit section of elbow ( h3) = 35 mm.
11.   Angle of elevation of diffuser ( α1) =15 degrees. Figure 9.  Model of elbow draft tube.
12.   Height of exit section of diffuser ( h4) = 91 mm.
13.   Width of exit section of diffuser ( B2) = 200 mm. Mesh was created in MESH module of ANSYS. Figure
10 and 11 shows the meshed view of conical and elbow
6.1 Introduction to Computational Fluid draft tube. Details of nodes and elements generated for
Dynamics each geometry are as below:
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is involves solving 1. Number of Nodes: 45068, Number of elements: 142856
a fluid flow problem (or other related physical processes) (Conical draft tube 8 degree).
using a numerical simulation. This methodology involves 2. Number of Nodes: 71012, Number of elements: 214203
various stages such as geometric/mathematical modeling, (Conical draft tube).
discretization etc. Initially, geometric model is prepared in 3. Number of Nodes: 44765, Number of elements: 142323
computer and mathematical model is identified (nature of (Conical draft tube 3 degree).
problem). The problem is further discretized using tech-
niques such as Finite Difference Method (FDM), Finite
Volume Method (FVM) and Finite Element Method (FEM).
Numerical solution means solving the identified numeri-
cal model by converting it into discrete algebraic problem
(steady) or ordinary differential equation (unsteady).Hence,
value of variables are calculated at each computational node
and results are analyzed to understand the reality.

6.2  Modeling and Mesh Generation

The geometries were created in Design Modeler module Figure 10.  View of meshed conical draft tube.
of ANSYS 15. Figure 8 and 9 shows the conical draft tubes
(8 degree cone angle and 3 degree cone angle) and elbow
draft tube.

Figure 8.  Conical draft tube with 8 degree and 3 degree

cone angle. Figure 11.  View of meshed elbow draft tube.

Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 5
 Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Draft Tubes for Francis Turbine

These meshes were generated again with finer and

coarse grid options to determine grid independence.
Variations in pressure and velocity were noted. Since, the
variations were in negligible (order 10-3), grid indepen-
dence was tested.

6.3 Pre-Processing
ANSYS CFX was used for pre-processing in which
domain, materials and boundary conditions were defined.
Initially, water was selected as working fluid and reference
was taken as 1 atmospheric pressure. Turbulence plays an
important role inside the draft tube. Hence, Shear Stress
Transport (SST) model was defined to analyze the flow
inside the draft tube. Inlet and Outlet of draft tubes were
created. Wall type boundary was defined on the outer sec-
tion while inside domain was specified as fluid (water).
The mass flow rate (as in experiment) was defined at the
inlet and outlet pressure was kept uniform. Flow direc-
tion was kept normal to the boundary at inlet and no slip
wall (smooth) condition was specified for wall boundary.
Figure 12 and 13 shows the boundary conditions at inlet
and outlet of conical and elbow type draft tube.
Figure 13.  Boundary conditions for elbow draft tube.
6.4  Solution and Post-Processing
High resolution advection scheme with first order tur-
bulence numeric was used. Auto timescale control and
RMS criteria was specified. Maximum iterations were
increased accordingly. The results of the simulation have
been discussed in detail in section 5.
7.  Experimental Setup
The experimental test rig was designed to obtain the effi-
ciency of the system at different flow conditions and using
different draft tubes. Test rig consists of a Francis turbine,
draft tube, pump etc (Figure 14).

Figure 12.  Inlet and outlet boundary condition for conical

draft tube. Figure 14.  Schematic diagram of Francis turbine test rig.

6 Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Various draft tubes were designed and fabricated in
the lab to study the flow pattern and their contribution to
Francis turbine efficiency. Different draft tubes that were
fabricated are as follows:
1. Straight conical draft tube (3ocone angle).
2. Straight conical draft tube (8o cone angle).
3. Straight conical draft tube with square section at
outlet.
4. Curved elbow draft tube.
The fabricated draft tubes were then fitted on the
system and efficiency of Francis turbine was calculated.
Figure15-17 show conical, conical with square outlet and
elbow draft tube.
Figure 15.  Conical draft tube having 8 degree cone angle.
Figure 16.  Straight conical draft tube having variation in
outlet section.
Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org
Tarang Agarwal, Shreyash Chaudhary and Shivank Verma
Figure 17.  Side view and top view of curved elbow draft
tube.
7.1 Procedure
Fabricated draft tubes were assembled with the turbine and
efficiency was calculated by varying the flow conditions and
draft tube itself. Since synchronous speed plays important
roles in electricity generation, mostly those flow rates were
selected which gave turbine speed close to synchronizing
speed. System was switched on and was kept undisturbed
for 5 minutes so that it may attain a steady state. Flow rate
was controlled by using a flow regulating mechanism. The
speed (revolution per minute) of the flywheel was mea-
sured by using a digital tachometer. This flywheel was
coupled with turbine and rotates with the same speed as of
the turbine. Once the flow rate was set, then the readings
on the venturimeter, pressure gauge (gauge) and vacuum
gauge were noted. Dead weight was placed on the hanger
of the dynamometer attached to the turbine until the fly-
wheel of dynamometer stopped. The reading on the spring
balance was noted. Total dead weight to stop the flywheel
of dynamometer was also noted. To calculate the output
power, torque was calculated and multiplied with angular
speed of the flywheel and input power was calculated using
the conventional formula i.e. power = density (water) x
acceleration due to gravity x head available at inlet x dis-
charge in cumecs. Results of experimental analysis have
been discussed in detail in section 5.
8.  Results and Discussion
8.1  Numerical Results
The pressure contours for conical and elbow draft tubes were
plotted for specific cases. For conical draft tube with 8 degree
cone angle, pressure increased from -10798.7 Pa to -610.2 Pa
Indian Journal of Science and Technology 7
 Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Draft Tubes for Francis Turbine

(conservative). This variation in pressure shows conversion

of kinetic energy into pressure, thereby increasing the effi-
ciency of turbine. Velocity of water decreased from 2.65 m/s
at inlet to 0.54 m/s at outlet. In theory, pressure and velocity
both must decrease in draft tube but since we haven’t con-
nected the turbine (numerical analysis), efficiency of draft
tube is estimated as a measure of overall losses. Hence, each
computed value was substituted in Bernoulli equation and
overall losses were calculated. From Figure 18 and 19, it can
be seen that the there is a large variation in pressure inside
the bend section. Suction is created on the inner side (con-
cave) while high pressure Figure 20 exists on the outer side
(convex) of the bent section. Since overall suction occurs, Figure 20.  Pressure contours on the outer side of conical
draft tube.
velocity at inlet is higher than theoretical velocity (discharge/
area of cross section). For conical draft tube with 3 degree
cone angle, similar pressure contours were obtained. In both Figure 21 and 22 shows the pressure variations in
cases, the suction pressure obtained at inlet was same as in elbow draft tube. Pressure at inlet was -9839.7 Pa and
experiment. In case of 8 degree conical draft tube, suction -797.4 Pa at outlet. Velocity decreased from 1.74 m/s at
pressure at inlet was 10798.7 Pa (numerically) and 11030 Pa inlet to 0.46 m/s at outlet.
(experimentally). Since the error in these values is around ±2
% (within acceptable limits), model is validated.

Figure 21.  Pressure contours on concave side of elbow

draft tube.

Figure 18.  Pressure contours on conical draft tube.

Figure 19.  Pressure contours on inner edge of conical Figure 22.  Pressure contour on convex side of elbow draft
draft tube. tube.

8 Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Tarang Agarwal, Shreyash Chaudhary and Shivank Verma

Head loss (hf ) was calculated in each case using shows various parameters that were evaluated with coni-
Bernoulli equation. These losses are a direct measure of cal draft tube with cone angle as 3 degrees. It can be seen
draft tube efficiency i.e. higher head loss means lower from Figure 24 that the maximum efficiency occurs at
draft tube efficiency. The suction head (height of draft mass flow rate 6.92 kg/s.
tube) is taken as 0.72m. Overall head loss in 8 degree
conical draft tube (at 7.35 kg/s discharge) was 0.024 m Table 2.  Different parameters of Francis turbine (conical
of water. Similarly, losses in case of 3 degree conical draft draft tube with cone angle 3 degrees).
tube (at 6.92 kg/s) was 0.041 m of water and with elbow
draft tube was 0.059 m of water. Discharge 0.34 kg/cm2 Suction 0.10 kg/
Pressure (Pd) Pressure (Ps) cm2
8.2  Experimental Results H1 0.5 cm H2 1.3 cm
Efficiency of Francis turbine was calculated using the Dead Weight 1.5 kg Spring Weight 0.7 kg
experimental readings. Table 1 shows various parameters Head 4.4 m of water Velocity 1.37 m/s
that were evaluated with conical draft tube (cone angle as (theoretical)
8 degrees). These parameters were also calculated for other Mass Flow 6.92 kg/s Torque 1.59 Nm
flow rates (at specific rpm). Figure 23 shows the variation Rate
in efficiency with rpm of the turbine (at different mass flow Power In 0.31 kW Power Out 0.24 kW
rates). It is seen that maximum efficiency occurs at 1500 Efficiency 77.4 %
rpm of turbine when mass flow rate is 7.35 kg/s.

Table 1.  Different parameters of Francis turbine (conical

draft tube with cone angle 8 degrees).
Discharge 0.31 kg/ Suction Pressure 0.11 kg/
Pressure (Pd) cm2 (Ps) cm2
H1 0.5 cm H2 1.4 cm
Dead Weight 2.0 kg Spring Weight 0.7 kg
Head 4.1 m of Velocity Inlet 1.47 m/s
water (theoretical)
Mass Flow 7.35 kg/s Torque 1.59 Nm
Rate
Power In 0.295 kW Power Out 0.2494 Figure 24.  Variation in efficiency with rpm of turbine
kW (conical 3 degree draft tube).
Efficiency 84.39 %

Table 3 shows various parameters that were evalu-

Figure 23.  Variation in efficiency with rpm of turbine
(conical 8 degree draft tube).
Same parameters were also calculated for Francis tur-
bine with draft tube having 3 degree cone angle. Table 2
ated with conical draft tube with square outlet. It can
be seen from Figure 25 that the maximum efficiency
occurs at 11.75 kg/s discharge condition. This flow rate
is more than that in conical draft tubes. This trend is
quite different as the value efficiency kept increasing
with discharge (or rpm of system). Hence, it is advis-
able to further test this draft tube on setups which
can accommodate higher discharge. Table 4 shows the
parameters corresponding to elbow draft tube. It can
be seen from Figure 26 that efficiency reaches as high
as 81% but at higher flow rates (9.48 kg/s) as compared
to rated discharge condition.

Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 9
 Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Draft Tubes for Francis Turbine

Table 3.  Different parameters of Francis turbine (conical It is seen from Figure 27 that maximum efficiency of
draft tube with square section). Francis turbine reaches as high as 84.4% when conical
Discharge 0.33 kg/ Suction Pres- 0.92 kg/ draft tube with 8 degree cone angle is used. The efficiency
Pressure (Pd) cm2 sure (Ps) cm2 trend for 3 degree conical tube is same but the values are
H1 1.2 cm H2 1.8 cm lower. For conical draft tube with square head, efficiency
Dead Weight 1.5 kg Spring Weight 0.7 kg increases with discharge (and speed) and reaches as high
Generated 4.3 m of Velocity 1.19 m/s as 78.2 % for discharge as high as 11.7 kg/s (rated is 7.4
Head water (Theoretical) kg/s). System may attain a higher efficiency at higher dis-
Mass Flow 5.99 kg/s Torque 1.0491 Nm charge but system limitations didn’t allow us to go beyond
Rate this limit. For elbow type draft tube, efficiency of the sys-
Power In 0.2530 kW Power Out 0.1669 kW tem reached as high as 81.6 % but at a higher flow rate
value i.e. 8.49 kg/s.
Efficiency 65.95%

Figure 25.  Variation in efficiency with rpm of turbine

(conical draft tube with square outlet).

Table 4.  Different parameters of Francis turbine (curved Figure 27.  Comparison of efficiencies of Francis turbine
elbow draft tube). using different draft tubes.
Discharge 0.325 kg/ Suction 0.10 kg/cm2
Pressure (Pd) cm2 Pressure (Ps)
H1 0.8 cm H2 2.0 cm
9. Conclusion
Dead Weight 2.0 kg Spring 0.7 kg In the present study, numerical and experiment investiga-
Weight tions were carried out on different draft tubes in Francis
Generated 4.25 m of Velocity 1.68 m/s turbine at different flow conditions. Different types of
Head water (theoretical) draft tubes were designed, assembled and tested at dif-
Mass Flow 8.4843 kg/s Torque 1.5886 Nm ferent turbine speed and discharge conditions. Results
Rate obtained in Numerical analysis were compared with
Power In 0.3537 kW Power Out 0.2500 kW experimental results. The order of error in values was
Efficiency 70.69 % found to be within acceptable limits.
Although, the pressure inside the draft tube is less than
atmospheric pressure, still high pressure zones were identi-
fied in conical and elbow draft tubes. These areas will be
severely damaged when particles (sand) inside the water
will impact against the surface. Other possibility of damage
will be due to collapse of high pressure bubble (cavitations
erosion). One way to avoid high pressure zones is by using
baffle plates inside the draft tubes. This will also minimize
the turbulence losses up to a certain extent. Further, it can
Figure 26.  Variation in efficiency with rpm of turbine be concluded Francis turbine has maximum efficiency
(elbow draft tube). (84.4%) when conical draft tube with 8 degree cone angle

10 Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology
 Tarang Agarwal, Shreyash Chaudhary and Shivank Verma

is used. The efficiency for 3 degree conical tube is compara- Image Velocimetry. IOP Conference Series Earth and
tively less. Hence, it is suggested to keep the cone angle in Environmental Science. 2014 Sep, p. 2−11.
the range of 7-8 degree. Angles greater than 8 degree may 10. Bhatt GB, Shah DB, Patel KM. Design Automation and CFD
also result in lesser efficiency due to backfow problem. Analysis of Draft Tube for Hydro Power Plant, International
Conical draft tube with square outlet gave higher efficiency Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering. 2015;
3(6):40−43.
values than expected. Hence, it is advisable to further
11. Anup KC, Lee YH, Thapa B. CFD Study on Prediction of
test this draft tube. For elbow type draft tube, efficiency
Vortex Shedding in Draft Tube of Francis Turbine and
of the system reached as high as 81.6 % but at a higher Vortex Control Techniques, Renewable Energy. 2016;
flow rate value i.e. 8.49 kg/s. In areas of variable discharge 86:1406−21. Crossref.
(part-load), elbow draft tube can be used because of lesser 12. Jacob T. Evaluation Sur Modèle Réduit Et Prédiction De La
variations in efficiency at different flow rates. Stabilité De Fonctionnement Des Turbines Francis. École
Polytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne. 1993, p. 1−226.
13. Khurana S, Singh N, Singh H. Effect of Cavitations on
10. References Hydraulic Turbines- A Review, International Journal of
Current Engineering and Technology. 2012; 172−77.
1. Key World Energy Statistics. Date accessed: 20/03/2017.
14. Thicke, RH. Practical Solutions for Draft Tube Instability,
Crossref.
Water Power and Dam Construction.1981; 33(2):31−37.
2. Gubin MF. Draft Tubes of Hydro Electric Stations. Amerind
15. Brekke H. A Review of some Dynamic Problems in
Publishing Company Co Pvt. Ltd. India, 1973.
Hydropower Plants. International Association for Hydro-
3. Date accessed: 20/03/2017. Crossref.
Environment Engineering and Research WG1, 2003.
4. Khare R, Prasad V, Mittal SK. Effect of Runner Solidity on
16. Blommaert G. Étude du Comportement Dynamique
Performance of Elbow Draft Tube, Energy Procedia. 2012;
des Turbines Francis Contrôleactif de Leurstabilité
14:2054−59. Crossref.
de Fonctionnement. École Polytechnique Fédérale de
5. Khare R, Prasad V, Verma M. Design Optimisation of
Lausanne. 2000, p. 1−151.
Conical Draft Tube of Hydraulic Turbine, International
17. Resiga RS, Thi CVU, Muntean S, Ciocan GD, Nennemann B.
Journal of Advances in Engineering Science and
Jet Control of the Draft Tube Vortex Rope in Francis Turbines
Technology. 2012 May; 2(1):21−26.
at Partial Discharge. 23rd IAHR Symposium. 2006 Oct, 1(14).
6. Jeon JH, Byeon SS, Kim YJ. Effects of Draft Tube on The
PMid:17308691.
Hydraulic Performance of A Francis Turbine, Materials
18. Chen C, Nicolet C, Yonezawa K, Farhat M, Avellan F,
Science and Engineering. 2013; 52:1−7. Crossref.
Tsujimoto Y. One-Dimensional Analysis of Full Load
7. Prasad V, Khare R, Chincholikar A. Hydraulic Performance
Draft Tube Surge, Journal of Fluids Engineering. 2008; 130.
of Elbow Draft Tube for Different Geometric Configurations
Crossref.
using CFD. IGHEM, 2010, p. 252−56. PMid: 20064539.
19. Miyagi O. Cavitations in and Consequent Vibration of the
8. Soni V, Roghelia A, Desai J, Chauhan V. Design Development
Draught Tube of a Water Turbine, Journal of the Society of
of Optimum Draft Tube for High Head Francis Turbine
Mechanical Engineers Japan. 1930; 33(2):57−59.
using CFD. Proceedings of the 37th International and 4th
20. Brennen CE. Bubble Dynamics Damage and Noise.
National Conference on Fluid Mechanics And Fluid Power,
Hydrodynamics of Pump. Cambridge University Press.
2010, p. 1−10.
2011, p. 78−95. Crossref.
9. Duquesne P, Maciel Y, Dan Ciocan G, Deschênes
C. Flow Separation in a Straight Draft Tube Particle

Vol 10 (23) | June 2017 | www.indjst.org Indian Journal of Science and Technology 11